Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

[Matt Mackall]

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 12:55 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:44:14AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > If others disagree, and using bitops is not an idea which will fly, I'd
> > sure like to know sooner rather than later.
> 
> There are more than enough use cases that have large numbers of open
> files (e.g. various high-end network servers).  While it might not be
> as sewer as for inodes I think it's really bad idea to do it for no
> reason. 

Maybe we can just demote f_ep_lock to f_lock and share it? 

Or extend flags and have two independent bitlocks in it. This actually
shrinks struct_file for most users.

-- 
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/